It is well known that many species

Answer choices

1. A

   Reversed Parts13% picked this

   A general principle is used to justify a claim made about a particular case to which that principle

   If we say X is used to justify Y, then X is the evidence and Y is the conclusion. Was the evidence here a "general principle? Was the conclusion "a particular case"? No, it's the other way around.

   13%
2. B

   Out of Scope: controversial phenomenon3% picked this

   An explanation of how a controversial phenomenon could have come about is given in order to support the claim that this phenomenon

   There's no controversial phenomenon that came about. Maybe people would think, "Since this goes against what is usually assumed, can we call it controversial?" Not really. But even if we did, we'd say the controversial phenomenon is "plankton (a non-highly evolved species) changing its environment to aid in its survival". Does the author offer an explanation of how plankton can change its environment to aid in its survival? Sure, the plankton generates a gas, which turns into sulfate, which causes water vapor to condense, which causes clouds, which reflects sunlight, which cools the Earth, which benefits the plankton. Does the author do this to support the conclusion that "this phenomenon did in fact come about"? No. The conclusion is not, "So you see, plankton really DID change their environment for their own benefit." The conclusion, instead, is "So you see, it's NOT just highly evolved species that change their environment for their own benefit."

   3%
3. C

   Weak Conclusion/Evidence Match17% picked this

   A generalization about the conditions under which a certain process can occur is advanced on the basis of an examination of certain cases

   Because this answer is structured, a generalization about X is advanced on the basis of Y that means X would be the conclusion and Y would be the evidence. Is the conclusion talking about "the conditions under which a certain process can occur"? Ugh. We could probably stretch that to match. A certain process [changing the environment to benefit your species' survival] can occur under conditions of [highly evolved species] as well as [not highly evolved species]. Does the evidence then examine certain cases in which that process did occur. No, it's just one case: plankton.

   17%
4. D

   Correct67% picked this

   A counterexample to a position being challenged is presented in order to show that this

   Why this is right

   As we anticipated, this would fall into the (counter)example bucket. The position being challenged is that "only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival". The author is saying, "No, that's incorrect. It's actually quite common for that to happen (even among not-most-highly evolved). Here's a counterexample for you: plankton do that thing you think is only true of the most highly evolved species."

   Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   67%
5. E

   Out of Scope: strategy advantage1% picked this

   A detailed example is used to illustrate the advantage of one

   They knew we'd fall in love with "a detailed example is used" and hoped we'd be too scared to get a divorce with the rest of the answer. A detailed example was used to illustrate that sometimes non-highly evolved species will also change their environment in ways that aid their survival. There is no discussion of any "strategies" and the author is certainly never endorsing one strategy as more advantageous than another.

   1%